nuno barreto wrote:
> >> Actually, I have talked with Rick Meyers from e-Sword, and he didn't
> >> contact anyone to do that, or even autorized it.
>> >> Same could have happened to Sword, thought it wouldn't be bad, in my
> >> opinion.
> -------------------------
> >I've seen Sword for sale in a collection of software on eBay. I find it
> >kind of offensive that they don't bother to even say thanks or notify
> >us, but oh well.
> -------------------------
> For me, that is different than what I was saying. If people have to explicitly
> pay for the contents, thats bad. But if people pay only costs of productio/delivery,
> its a totally different thing.
>> If people pay for the contents, then that is morally wrong. And GPL protects
> such a thing.
The GPL does more than protect it - it encourages it. RMS and the FSF encourage people
to make as much money as the can out of free software to support the development of more
free software.
> But people can sell only the distribution. That, I see as good.
What do you mean 'sell only the distribution'? What else is there to sell?
> But, of course, I agree with you that they should at least tell the creators that they
> are going to distribute it, and even better, ask permission for doing so.
In the case of Sword, CrossWire has already given permission by releasing it under the
GPL. They wouldn't need to ask when they've already been told they can. :-)
Paul
http://paulgear.webhop.net